[AdamB]

Fortune favors the doubters because the ETP model has fixed dates and fixed prices for those dates which are now demonstrably false in matching reality.

Using the word fortune gives it too much credit. It was a given from the start, and I have been saying it for maybe more than a year now, after only a few minutes of investigation.

No need for fortune at all when facts, logic and 120 seconds of critical thinking will tell you everything you need to know about its capabilities.

[ralfy]

+1

Also, backing up the theory with logic that (for example) not using inflation adjusted dollars over 6 decades "proves" that the cost of obtaining a BTU of energy has risen by roughly the amount those dollars have depreciated due to cumulative inflation.

Of course, for the ETP supporters, ignoring math and pretending that magically, starting in mid-2014, the issue with oil became affordability and THAT's why the price fell is another favorite defense/deflection for the ETP theory. The obvious problem with that theory is that every credible source shows that the global and US economy have continued to grow just fine on average (as long as extremists aren't gaming the numbers). Thus the idea that oil at $40 or $50 is less affordable than it was for the four years preceeding mid 2014, when the price was roughly TWICE that on average, is sheer lunacy.

...

For people willing to trust the ideas and evidence of mainstream economics and real world economic data from credible sources, it looks solidly like the score should be check and mate against ETP to me.

Will a maximum MAP price dramatically crashing over the next several years help the ETPers' case? Only, IMO, if they radically move the goal posts, as some of them show evidence of starting to try to play with recently.

The fact that economics is measured in terms of dollars makes the thread title questionable. It was never economics vs. ETP. Rather, economics dependent on availability of material resources and energy. That's why we have diminishing returns.

[ralfy]

This is simple the EROEI argument with a bunch of unnecessary ETP bells and whistle stuck on it to make it 'prettier'. EROEI theory may very well prove to be the true effect over time, however marrying EROEI to overnight crash fast doom is where ETP comes from. EROEI means you have to choose to change your method of energy acquisition as one source of net energy goes into decline. I find this to be pretty basic and sound in concept, as Oil runs out of net energy we will be forced to select alternative energy sources to first supplement and then ultimately replace the energy we get from oil. Only a person blind to all the other sources of energy that feed into our civilization however would predict instant doom the day oil EROEI declines beyond (insert arbitrary number here).

Decline in net energy will not be system wide instant doom. While fracking wells may only produce 10:1 EROEI and Tar Sands 7:1 EROEI the vast flow out of OPEC is still coming at 85:1 or better and deep water sources are say 25:1 or better. Thus over the whole spectrum of sources the world net oil energy flow remains a high average and slowly declines as poorer sources are used to supplement better sources over time. When all the easy high EROEI conventional oil is exhausted and the only oil available is the low EROEI fracking/tar sand/extra heavy oil the net EROEI will fall to 10:1 or less. But that will take years, perhaps even decades, after conventional peak is irrefutably in the rear view mirror and we have passed a long distance down the depletion curve. In that window of time there will still be vast sources of Natural Gas, Coal and other energy sources to draw upon and as oil wanes they will move up the scale of desirability to higher levels. There is plenty of energy out there at this point in time and it will take years for the post peak crash to have full effect. We may have passed world peak in 2015, but we might not have as there is still a flush of fracking that has not yet come fully into use. The next few years are crucial.

The unnecessary bells and whistles ironically comes from economics. Put simply, we have an economic system measured in terms of money but dependent on energy and material resources. The first keeps growing through financial speculation while the latter becomes less available due to EROEI. The title thread implies that by creating more money we can reverse a downward trend in EROEI. That's not going to happen.

[AdamB]

The fundamental different between ETP and Economics (I wrote trying to get the thread back on topic) is Economic rules have been demonstrated to work for thousands of years and ETP has only presented a loose correlation for the last handful of years.

It should no surprise that Etp effects are only now apparent, in the last few years.

There are no Etp effects.

(As to you other point (loose correlation), under the terms of the Etp model, the data has kept within the predicted range.

The etp can't predict. Go here to understand why.

I spotted it within minutes of introduction to the etp. You still can't see it. Try harder.

In what way as the Etp model been proven demonstrably false?

You know. Data, reality, oil prices, stuff like that.

[AdamB]

Tanada, eroei is not a theory.

True. It is an arbitrary metric that is meaningless in any decision in the world made to date.

“The EROEI of Photo-Voltaics can be whatever you like these days” a friend of mine said once after attending a bio-physical economics conference. It epitomises a growing problem in this field, while the broad concept of net energy or Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) is broadly accepted there is no unified methodology for its calculation. Different researchers apply different methods producing markedly different results.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016- ... echnology/

[AdamB]

PS. I also do not consider myself an acolyte of Etp but rather a curious observer of it.

The Etp Model is an equation.

Then stop calling it a model.

[AdamB]

Thermodynamics, developed by Rudolf Clausius (+1988), results in ETP as a logical consequence.

No, it doesn't.

[AdamB]

How do you know that Asg. You have never demonstrated that you are familiar with the technical/mathematical aspects ts of the Etp equations

The same comment undoubtedly applies to you as well.

[onlooker]

How do you know that Asg. You have never demonstrated that you are familiar with the technical/mathematical aspects ts of the Etp equations

The same comment undoubtedly applies to you as well.

I have never claimed to being an engineer or someone who can interpret the technical/mathematical aspects of Etp. Simply a believer in its approach and the integrity of the process and those connected with it

[Yoshua]

Paul Krugman calls economics a human science.

How will humans behave when they discover an energy source that delivers 10 times more energy than the energy needed to produce this energy? The demand for this energy source will be high. To meet this demand the producers will increase the supply of this energy source.

How will humans behave when this energy source no longer can deliver any energy, since all energy is consumed in its production? If this energy source was the only energy source available, then the answer would be easy: There would be no supply of this energy source. But before we reach that point we would try find ways to cut down the energy consumption on the production side by all means: Cut CapEx, slash the workforce, cut wages, wear down the existing infrastructure until it crumbles.

Now if we are in an oil glut and the energy return of petroleum is high, then why are we letting the infrastructure crumble in front of our eyes?

[Plantagenet]

if we are in an oil glut and the energy return of petroleum is high, then why are we letting the infrastructure crumble in front of our eyes?

What planet do you live on? Infrastructure is built at an astonishing rate in China, and its pretty good in Europe, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, etc.

Its mainly here in the US that infrastructure spending has lagged, and thats a local US problem---its partly a product of political dishonesty (for instance, Obama pledged to spend almost a trillion on infrastructure, but then spent it instead on midnight basketball and such) and partly due to spending constraints from the US economy being sluggish and the federal government being so far in debt.

Cheers!

[asg70]

Simply a believer

Being "simply a believer" adds no value to the discussion as all you can do is bobblehead.

[AdamB]

I have never claimed to being an engineer or someone who can interpret the technical/mathematical aspects of Etp. I am simply a believer in its approach and the integrity of the process and those connected with it

I noted the point you made that is most relevant.

Peak oilers, once upon a time, claimed that they were the holders of the truth, because of their objective analysis and ability to think critically. Thank you for providing yet another data point about what a crock that was. Not that this is a surprise at all, but it is nice to see you folks admit it now.

[Yoshua]

[Yoshua]

"According to the 2013 report card by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the U.S. has serious infrastructure needs of more than $3.4 trillion through 2020, including $1.7 trillion for roads, bridges and transit; $736 billion for electricity and power grids; $391 billion for schools; $134 billion for airports; and $131 billion for waterways and related projects."

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/02/2 ... 0-Year-Low

[Plantagenet]

"According to the 2013 report card by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the U.S. has serious infrastructure needs of more than $3.4 trillion through 2020, including $1.7 trillion for roads, bridges and transit; $736 billion for electricity and power grids; $391 billion for schools; $134 billion for airports; and $131 billion for waterways and related projects."

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/02/2 ... 0-Year-Low

So you are in favor of Trump's proposal for more US infrastructure spending?

Cheers!

[onlooker]

"The unnecessary bells and whistles ironically comes from economics. Put simply, we have an economic system measured in terms of money but dependent on energy and material resources. The first keeps growing through financial speculation while the latter becomes less available due to EROEI. The title thread implies that by creating more money we can reverse a downward trend in EROEI. That's not going to happen."
BRAVO!
As for being a Believer, well you all seem to easily believe the Mainstream authorities and Media. You also BELIEVE, the Etp is wrong as you are not able to interpret its more technical/mathematical formulations nor have you offered any disqualifying evidence beyond references again to the Mainstream communiques.
Then you try to convince us that Economics trumps physicis and biophysical conditions. Sorry it does not. Ultimately, economics is simply a way to measure what is happening related to resources and to allocate and distribute them in pre-planned ways. The Etp has tried to transcend this limited economic perspective and get at the status of the resource involved in this case OIL.

[asg70]

you all seem to easily believe the Mainstream authorities and Media.

Occam's razor. If you can't trust anything you'll be afraid to get out of bed in the morning. That's the very definition of paranoia, man, and you at times really come across as skirting the edge.

[onlooker]

you all seem to easily believe the Mainstream authorities and Media.

Occam's razor. If you can't trust anything you'll be afraid to get out of bed in the morning. That's the very definition of paranoia, man, and you at times really come across as skirting the edge.

On the contrary, I endeavor to stand on the firm ground of reality and truth.

[Outcast_Searcher]

you all seem to easily believe the Mainstream authorities and Media.

Occam's razor. If you can't trust anything you'll be afraid to get out of bed in the morning. That's the very definition of paranoia, man, and you at times really come across as skirting the edge.

On the contrary, I endeavor to stand on the firm ground of reality and truth.

Then given your collective posts and sources, epic fail.